Was Obama naive, will Clinton be Bush-Cheney lite?

This item is part of a long political piece I did for the weekend print edition. In the blog I will be using only some parts of it, but if you want to read it all (2277 words), you're most welcomed.

It began with a small mistake by the person asking the question: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since." The five-year gap in the description of what happened back then took place at this summer's most intriguing political debate. The struggle between the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has been underway for several weeks, but it started with a debate held by CNN and YouTube, in which the candidates were asked to connect Sadat's visit to Israel with the political reality in America today. "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" they were asked.

Without hesitating, Obama said yes. Clinton, who responded after him, said no. Not in the first year, and not without an initial assessment, she said. Since then, the debate has turned into a real battle. Obama argued that the New York candidate was nothing but "Bush-Cheney lite" not exactly a compliment in the eyes of most Democratic voters. Such an argument is "silly," responded Clinton, labeling Obama's position as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive."

Obama and Clinton are more involved with political maneuvering than actually examining American foreign policy in depth. Obama, who is relatively inexperienced in the field and is presenting himself as an agent of change, is hitting his more veteran opponent in a sensitive spot. The Clintons of 1992 were a kind of novelty, but the Clintons of 2007 are the establishment that Obama seeks to shake up. But while Obama represents the promise of change, he also lacks experience. Clinton is leading over Obama in the polls, and a Gallup poll asking Clinton supporters why they prefer her over Obama provided the reasons: 33 percent said she is more experienced, while only 21 percent said they "like Clinton's views on issues/agenda."

Both candidates are making accurate accusations. Clinton is right to say that agreeing to meet foreign leaders so quickly and without any preconditions does not meet the standards of responsibility required from a president. Meetings at the presidential level, as has been
shown in the past, can be harmful as well as helpful. Henry Kissinger realized this when he resisted domestic pressure for rapid progress on talks with the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Nixon years. Bill Clinton understood this less so, as was seen by his setting aside
time for the futile Camp David summit in 2000.

But Obama was not necessarily mistaken in his accusations against Hillary Clinton. After all, it appears as though Clinton realizes that a rapid withdrawal from Iraq is not a reasonable option from the perspective of a responsible president, that direct dialogue is not a recipe for curbing Tehran's aggressive attitude in the Mideast and beyond, and that meetings with the Syrian president won't necessarily put an end to Syrian aspirations to rule Lebanon. Obama is right when he says that the policy of a Hillary Clinton administration would indeed be a lot more similar to the Bush-Cheney administration than she can publicly acknowledge.

This could be a reason to condemn her, or grounds to support her.

As for the Israel Factor's view on the matter, two panelists think Obama won the debate and two think Clinton did. But Clinton does have a slight advantage: The panelists who spoke out in her favor are more convinced that she won than those who gave Obama a higher score.

The Israel Factor on Rosner's Domain:

The ranking of the Presidential candidates

Survey number 10: all the numbers

Archive: Cautiously, the panel looks more favorably on Obama

Archive: Clinton vs. McCain: Who's really better for Israel?